Explain This Passage

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 180442

lizzyben:

"But they're all called half-blood, even though there's a big 
difference IMO." 

> a_svirn:
> Actually, there isn't. By *blood* Lily was a muggle – there wasn't 
a 
> drop of wizarding blood in her veins, since both her parents were 
> muggles. It was only because of an odd quirk of nature that she got 
> her wizading gene seemingly out of nowhere. So if we are to take 
> blood into account at all there is no difference between Snape and 
> Harry. The question is – should we? Take it into account, I mean? 
> Because I think the prejudice is not about *how* we measure 
wizading 
> blood. The prejudice starts when we start to measure it at all. 
>

lizzyben:

Well, what I mean is that Lily is a witch, as much a part of the 
wizarding world as any pureblood. And according to JKR all wizards, 
even Muggleborns, have "wizarding blood" somewhere in their ancestry. 
So Harry has magic from both parents. James & Lily are as prominent 
in the WW as Lucius & Narcissa, maybe more. So Harry would've grown 
up with a high status in the wizarding world, his natural home. In 
contrast, Snape grew up as a misfit in the Muggle world. As did 
Riddle. Snape and Riddle had the experience of belonging in neither 
the wizarding world, nor the Muggle one. Whereas a child of two 
wizarding parents would've grown up as a part of the wizarding world. 
Lily Potter is a powerful witch & a part of the WW; Tobias Snape is 
not a wizard & is not a part of the WW. I don't think it's the same 
thing & that's why it's odd to me that both Harry & Snape are 
referred to as "half-bloods". 

There is a big difference in terms of culture - a "half-blood" w/two 
wizard parents would understand & be a part of the wizarding culture, 
while a child w/a non-wizard parent would instead grow up as part of 
the Muggle culture. Another oddity, to me, is that while the text 
seems to approve of Muggleborn/Wizard marriages, it seems to look 
down on Muggle/Wizard marriages. After all, the only two we hear 
about are totally dysfunctional & poisonous. So, it's not very 
approving of relationships between people of different cultures. It's 
not even very approving of marriages outside of one's own House. 
After all, the Trio all marry other Gryffindors. So we have this very 
insular viewpoint that is suspicious of relationships outside one's 
own narrow circle or own's own culture - yet it's *tolerant* because 
the heros marry Muggle-borns who are part of that narrow 
circle/culture. 

It's that duality that facinates me - the text makes the "half-blood" 
distinction based on wizard/muggleborn wizard, when the real 
distinction should be wizard/muggle. But by framing the issue in this 
way, the text gets us to see the good guys as "tolerant" & non-
bigoted when they accept Muggle-borns, even though these wizards are 
as magical & as indoctrinated in wizarding culture as any pureblood. 
But if you interpret "half-blood" as a child of wizard/muggle 
parents, the picture suddenly looks very different. Wizard/muggle 
marriages are all unnatural & wrong, unhappy & miserable, leading to 
abuse & very messed-up kids. So, we get the messge - "keep to your 
own", don't go outside your own culture. Normally that would be seen 
as an intolerant, bigoted message. But because the text includes the 
children of two wizards as "half-bloods", that message is obscured.


> a_svirn:
> I think you are confusing nature and culture, so to speak. Harry 
> could've been a part of wizading world if he had been raised as a 
> wizard, but he wasn't because he hadn't. It has nothing to do with 
> blood, and everything to do with his upbringing. 
> 
> a_svirn
>

lizzyben:

But his upbringing would have everything to do w/his blood. The child 
of two wizards w/the magic wizarding gene will grow up in the WW. 
Like Harry would have. The child of a Muggle & wizard will instead 
grow up in the "other" Muggle world, like Snape did. Blood determines 
which culture you grow up as a part of - and a child of two wizards 
(whether muggleborn or not) will grow up as a part of the wizarding 
world. One of Us. Whereas a child w/a Muggle parent will instead 
likely grow up in the Muggle culture. One of Them. And the text 
seems to say that it's great if a "half-blood" child has a muggleborn 
wizard parent. But it's really, really bad if a "half-blood" 
child has a Muggle parent. 

It goes back to the odd distinction the books make between 
intolerance of Muggleborns (bad), & intolerance towards Muggles (OK). 
Muggleborns are part of wizarding culture, while Muggles are not. So 
Muggleborns & the children of muggleborn wizards ARE part of 
wizarding culture. They've got the same powers, same education, same 
everything. By promoting tolerance of Muggleborn wizards, who are 
part of the WW, & by defining half-blood to include the children of 
Muggleborn wizards, the text hides the negative, intolerant messages 
about Muggle culture. It frames the issue in such a way 
that "tolerance" only means accepting people from one's own culture, 
while maintaining an attitude of suspicion, seperation & superiority 
toward another culture.


lizzyben, not sure if this makes sense, but hitting send anyway.